Thapaliya v. Holder, Jr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7703

Kishan Thapaliya, a Nepali national, entered the U.S. on a student visa and later conceded removability; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in May 2010.
Thapaliya testified that on April 15, 2003, armed Maoist rebels came to his family home seeking his father; when the father was absent the rebels beat Thapaliya severely and pointed a gun at him; his brother was also beaten.
Thapaliya remained in Nepal for over a year after the incident and left for the U.S. in August 2004; he and his family suffered no further harm or threats thereafter.
The IJ credited Thapaliya’s account but denied asylum, finding the April 2003 beating was an isolated incident not amounting to past persecution and that Thapaliya lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution; IJ also denied withholding and CAT relief and granted voluntary departure.
The Board affirmed, emphasizing the isolation of the 2003 event, the lack of subsequent harm to Thapaliya or his family (despite Maoists’ later political control), and upheld denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; Thapaliya petitioned for review of the asylum denial.

Issue	Thapaliya's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the April 2003 beating and implied gun threat constitute past persecution	The single violent episode, including a gun threat, amounts to past persecution warranting asylum	The attack was an isolated incident and did not rise to the level of persecution	Denied: single isolated beating (even with implied threat) insufficient to compel finding of past persecution
Whether Thapaliya has a well-founded fear of future persecution absent past persecution presumption	The 2003 attack and Maoist political ascendency create an objectively reasonable fear of future harm	Lack of subsequent harm in >1 year in Nepal and continued safety of family members undercuts objective reasonableness	Denied: substantial evidence supports lack of objectively reasonable fear of future persecution
Whether denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection should be reviewed	Thapaliya raised withholding and CAT but made no substantive appellate arguments	Government treats those claims as unsupported; IJ found failure on merits	Abandoned on appeal; outcome would fail in light of asylum analysis
Whether IJ's timeliness ruling (asylum untimely) is reviewable or dispositive	Thapaliya contends the IJ erred in finding his asylum application untimely	Government treats timeliness as moot and questions jurisdiction	Board and court resolved merits instead; timeliness not decided on review

Aguilar-Solis v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 565 (1st Cir. 1999) (defines refugee/asylum eligibility)
Anacassus v. Holder, 602 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2010) (isolated beatings do not establish persecution)
Javed v. Holder, 715 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2013) (specific, repeated death threats may compel finding of past persecution)
Sunarto Ang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence review of agency factfinding)
Butt v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2007) (burden and high standard to show past persecution)
Barsoum v. Holder, 617 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2010) (systematic vs. isolated harm factors)
Decky v. Holder, 587 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2009) (single severe beating during riots can be isolated)
Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257 (1st Cir. 2005) (multiple separated beatings may still be insufficient to show persecution)
Vilela v. Holder, 620 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (repeated threats may still constitute harassment rather than persecution)